clil and project works contributions
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
1/31
CLIL and project work:
contributions from the classroom
Juan Manuel Sierra
Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2009 May 8-9
REAL Symposium on CLIL
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
2/31
3
1. Introduction
2. Programme characteristics:
2.1. Concept of cooperative project
2.2. Structure, methodology and assessment
3. The context of the study
3.1. Teacher & students profile
3.2. Questionnaire & procedure
4. Results
5. Conclusions
6. Pedagogical implications
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
3/31
1. Introduction
Cooperative learning: long tradition in primary/secondary education,although its implementation as a whole educational articulating principle isscarce both in pre-university teaching and in tertiary education (BAC).
New Primary/Secondary curricula & CEFR & ESHE: pedagogicalassumptions emphasize a much more active students role and thedevelopment of the learners autonomy. Research to improveteaching standards is needed.
Cooperative learning & TBLT & Project work: some proposals includethe students participation in the negotiation of the programme and in theassessment/evaluation (Rib y Vidal, 1993; Estaire y Zann, 1994; Breen yLittlejohn, 2000; Sierra, 2008). CLIL can benefit from thiseducational approach
4
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
4/31
1. Introduction
Basque Autonomous Community: Lack of experience in cooperativelearning & project work (teachers & students).
What do students think of CLIL and cooperative project work? Can CLIL benefit from this approach? Research is necessary to gain knowledge on the motivation and
attitudes of our students.
5
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
5/31
2. Programme characteristics
2.1. Concept of cooperative project
6
Project understood as a guided and flexible structure that articulates the
syllabus (), allows its negotiated construction through the cooperation
of the students, and incorporates a cooperative evaluation scheme to
assess/evaluate the students learning and the process of teaching-learning. ()
It evolves by means ofenabling and communication tasks that integrate
the development of cognitive and linguistic skills, the reflection on the
linguistic codeand the effective learning of content.
A methodology based on cooperative learning which incorporates thecontributions ofconstructivist and humanistic psychology and the values
of a participatory pedagogy which develops the students autonomy and
theirlearning strategies contributing to theirpersonal growth.
(Sierra, 2008: 206)Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
6/31
7
2.2. Structure, methodology and assessment
WorldMusicsProject
MusicalTheoryExam
Flutepractice &exam
1stTERM
Theinstrumentsof theorchestraProject
Theinstrumentsof theorchestraexam
Flute practice
2ndTERM
Our Songin English
Project
Flutepractice
3rdTERM
1st YEAR SECONDARY EDUCATION / ESO / DBH
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
7/31
8
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
A. Lpez de Luzuriaga & J.M. Sierra
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
8/31
9
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
9/31
The Young
Persons Guide
to the Orchestra
Benjamin Britten(2005)
Worksheets Listening
lessons
Work in group:
Each group will
work on an
instrument family
Each member of
the group will
work on an
instrument from
that family
Work in group:
Each group will
prepare the
POSTER and thePRESENTATION
of the
instrument
FAMILY
Individual work:
Each member
will prepare his/herPRESENTATION
of the
instrumentCheck Your KnowledgeQuestionnaire (CYKQ)
Oral Presentation Assessment Report
10Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
A. Lpez de Luzuriaga & J.M. Sierra
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
10/31
THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE ORCHESTRA
PRESENTATIONS & EXAM CALENDAR
WEDNESDAY THURSDAY
FEB. 11 Prepare Presentation FEB. 12 Prepare Presentation
FEB. 18 Poster Presentation FEB. 19 NO CLASS: Go skiing
FEB. 25 Poster Presentation FEB. 26 Poster Presentation
MARCH 4 Exam MARCH 5 Assessment Tutorials
GROUPS PRESENTATIONS CALENDAR
Feb. 18 The conductor
STRING FAMILY Violin, Viola, Cello, Double bass.
BRASS FAMILY Trumpet, Trombone, French Horn, Tuba
Feb. 25 WOODWIND F. Flute & Piccolo; Clarinet & BassClarinet; Oboe & English Horn;
Bassoon & Contrabassoon
Feb. 26 PERCUSSION F. Snare & Bass Drum; Timpani; Auxiliary
percussion; Keyboard percussion
11Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
11/31
Oral Presentation Assessment Report
12Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
A. Lpez de Luzuriaga & J.M. Sierra
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
12/31
OUR SONG IN ENGLISH
PRESENTATIONS CALENDAR
GROUPMEMBERS
MUSIC GROUP RESOURCESNEEDED
PRESENTATIONDATE
Leire, Silvia,Sarai
Britney Spears CASSETTE MAY 14
Daniel, Depa,Koldo
AC/DC COMPUTER(MP3)
MAY 14
Ana, Sandra,Marian
Avril Lavigne CD/USB MAY 19
Amaia, Alba,Raquel
Katy Perry CD MAY 19
Markel, Jon,Kepa
SUM 41 INTERNET MAY 21
Ander, Josu,Roberto
Eminem CD/USB MAY 21
Daniel, Asier,Iigo
U2 DIVX MAY 26
Noelia, Sara,Maitane
Metallica CD MAY 26
13
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
13/31
14
61 1st-year Secondary Education students:1st year in CLIL project (3h English + 4h CLIL Music & Religion/Alternative)
Enrolled in bilingual models (B: 41 students; D: 20 students) B model: Spanish Language and Literature & Mathematics in Spanish D model: Spanish Language and Literature in Spanish Subject: Music (2 hours per week) State school, Vitoria-Gasteiz (6th year in plurilingual project).
3. The context of the study
3.1. Students profile (school year: 2008/2009)
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
14/31
3.1. Teachers profile
Basque Language and Literature teacher in Secondary Education. Music background: 5th level in Musical Theory & 4th level in
piano studies.
Certificate in Advanced English (CAE).
Master in Applied Linguistics (UPV/EHU). Methodology courses on language teaching and CLIL. 18 years professional experience. 2 years experience in CLIL:
2007/2008: ICT (1st year Secondary education). 2008/2009: Music (1st & 2nd years Secondary education).
15
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
15/31
3.2. Questionnaire & procedure
Individual questionnaire: 29 items (24 close & 5 open). Sections: Course impression & motivation Language skills, content improvement & culture Autonomous learning Topics Level of satisfaction within cooperative groups Format, guidelines & materials of the projects Assessment Oral presentation Teachers work Suggestions.
16
Procedure:Individual and anonimous filling out in class (30-40).Analysis of items
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
16/31
17
4. Results (59 questionnaires)
Item 1: In general, my impression of this course is:
VERY GOOD GOOD SATISFACTORY POOR
7 (11,8%) 44 (74,7%) 7 (11,8%) 1 (1,7%)
Item 2: The way we worked has motivated me:
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
14 (23,7%) 33 (55,9%) 11 (18,6%) 1 (1,7%)
Item 3: If you had to do this subject again, you would choose:
COOPERATIVE PROJECT WORK OTHER
50 (87,7%) 7 (12,3%) Games; Watchvideos; I dont know
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
17/31
18
Item 5: My impression is that while presenting my projects the
rest of the class worked:
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
10 (16,9%) 37 (62,7%) 11 (18,6%) 1 (1,8%)
Item 4: My impression is that in this subject I have worked:
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
19 (32,2%) 38 (64,4%) 2 (3,4%) 0
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
18/31
19
Item 6: Doing and presenting my group projects I learnt:
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
17 (29,3%) 37 (63,8%) 3 (5,1%) 1 (1,7%)
Item 7: Listening to my classmates presentations and doingtheir activities I learnt
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
8 (13,5%) 32 (54,3%) 16 (27,1%) 3 (5,1%)
Item 8: I consider that () I have improved my
comprehension of spoken English
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
4 (6,8%) 46 (78%) 7 (11,8%) 2 (3,4%)
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
19/31
20
Item 9: I consider that () I have improved my speaking
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
7 (11,9%) 46 (78%) 5 (8,4%) 1 (1,7%)
Item 10: With the format of the 3 projects my autonomouslearning has improved
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
7 (11,9%) 39 (66,1%) 11 (18,6%) 2 (3,4%)
Item 11: The materials provided by the teacher have helped to
do and present our projects
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
22 (37,3%) 33 (55,9%) 3 (5,1%) 1 (1,7%)
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
20/31
21
Item 12: The guidelines provided by the teacher to do and
present our projects have helped
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
11 (18,6%) 35 (59,4%) 12 (20,3%) 1 (1,7%)
Item 13: The topics covered by the projects interested me
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
10 (16,9%) 31 (52,2%) 14 (23,7%) 4 (6,8%)
Item 14: Doing the projects and listening to the presentations
I learnt about the cultures of other countries
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
16 (28,8%) 28 (47,5%) 12 (20,3%) 2 (3,4%)
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
21/31
22
Item 15: Had you worked before in cooperative groups as the
main system of workduring the course?
Item 16: I like my experience working in groups
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
25 (43,1%) 28 (48,3%) 4 (6,9%) 1 (1,7%)
Item 17: Your level of satisfaction within your group has been
HIGH MEDIUM LOW VERY LOW
16 (28,8%) 28 (47,5%) 12 (20,3%) 2 (3,4%)
YES NO
16 (28%) In Primary Education 41 (72%)
WORLD MUSICS
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
22/31
23
THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE ORCHESTRA
HIGH MEDIUM LOW VERY LOW
14 (23,7%) 29 (49,2%) 11 (18,6%) 5 (8,4%)
OUR SONG IN ENGLISH
HIGH MEDIUM LOW VERY LOW
39 (66,1%) 16 (27,1%) 1 (1,7%) 3 (5,1%)
Item 19: In my opinion the format of Our Song in English project
() is
VERY GOOD GOOD SATISFACTORY POOR
26 (44,1%) 28 (47,5%) 4 (6,7%) 1 (1,7%)
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
23/31
24
YES NO
9 (15,8%) The poster; last project = last examin June; 2nd project topic; music videos
48 (84,2%)
Item 22: I like assessing my own group oral presentations
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE
12 (20,3%) 28 (47,5%) 15 (25,4%) 4 (6,8%)
Item 20: Would you change anything?
Item 21:The assessment instrument we used to assess our projects is:
VERY GOOD GOOD SATISFACTORY POOR5 (8,5%) 41 (69,5%) 11 (18,6%) 2 (3,4%)
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
24/31
25
Item 25: I found assessing other groups oral presentations
VERY EASY EASY DIFFICULT VERY DIFFICULT
8 (13,8%) 34 (58,6%) 12 (20,7%) 4 (6,9%)
Item 23: I like assessing other groups oral presentations
Item 24: I found assessing my own group oral presentation
VERY EASY EASY DIFFICULT VERY DIFFICULT6 (10,3%) 30 (51,7%) 18 (31,1%) 4 (6,9%)
A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE13 (22,4%) 33 (56,9%) 10 (17,2%) 2 (3,5%)
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
25/31
5. CONCLUSIONS
Despite their very limited experience in cooperative projectwork, the participants:
Like the course: motivation, preference for project work and highlevel of satisfaction in their groups.
Acknowledge having worked hard (96,6%) and learnt quite/a lot. Consider theyve improved to a great extent receptive and
productive skills in English, and the quality of their autonomouslearning.
Think that he format of the projects, the guidelines, materials andPOE instruments provided by the teacher were of great help.
Most of them liked assessing their own OPs (67,8%) and theirclassmates (79,3%) and found it easy (their own OPs, 62%; theirclassmates 72,4%).
26
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
26/31
5. CONCLUSIONS
These results are in line with research in the BAC: 22 years and over1600 students: action-research cycles in secondary and tertiaryeducation both for teaching languages and subject matter (Sierra,2008; Sierra, forthcoming).
Difficulties of any innovation process: double process, CooperativeProject Work and CLIL
Teachers & students face the challenges of a more complex andparticipative pedagogical interaction: drastic change in theirtraditional roles.
More demanding for both teachers and students: amount ofwork, preparation of materials, format of the projects, POEinstruments.
Effective implementation of cooperative assessment:formative &summative dimensions.
27
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
27/31
Individual and cooperative effort / quality project work required Climate of constructive collaboration: indispensable for cooperative assessment
POE instruments: guide work during the different phases of implementation Enabling tasks (language, learning, assessment): from simple to complex. Flexible project structure: allows students initiative and creativity.
programmme construction/assessment + Appropriate = ResponsibilityMethodology Motivation
6. Pedagogical implications (Sierra, 2008; adapted)
28
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
28/31
Integration of learning strategies Autonomy: gradual development Scaffolding: structure/interaction
Collaboration vs Competition
Structuring Autonomy/Experience Students projects proposals
Integrateddevelopment of the 4 skills Development of communicative and intercultural competence
6. Pedagogical implications (Sierra, 2008; adapted)
New didactic dimension: students as teachersCoyles 4 Cs framework: Content Communication Cognition Culture
29
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
29/31
Cooperative project work can integrate the best educationaltraditions of subject teaching and the essential contributions of
language pedagogy, and play a leading role in promotingmeaningful student engagement with language and content
learning.
As the proverb goes,
It takes two to tango,and we think that
cooperative project work and CLIL
do tango and tango well.
30
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
30/31
I would like to express my gratitude to the teacher Ane Lpez deLuzuriaga and her students, without whom this study would not havebeen possible.
This study was supported by the grant HUM2006-09775-C02-01/FILO awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science,and the grant IT-202-072 awarded by the Department of Education,University and Research of the Basque Governmet.
31
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)
-
7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions
31/31
REFERENCES
BREEN, M.P. and LITTLEJOHN, A. (2000) (eds.) Classroom Decision-Making. Negotiation and process syllabuses inpractice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
COTS, J.M., IBARRARAN, A., IRN, M., LASAGABASTER, D., LLURD, E. and SIERRA, J.M. (forthcoming)Reflexiones y propuestas didcticas para contextos escolares multilinges: el desarrollo de la competencia plurilinge e
intercultural. Barcelona:Horsori.
COYLE. D. (2008). CLILA pedagogical approach from the European perspective in N. Van Deusen-Sholl and N. H.Hornberger (eds.)Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Second and Foreign Language Education (second edition,Volume 4). New York: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
ESTAIRE, S. y ZANN, J. (1994)Planning Classwork. A Task Based Approach. Oxford: Heinemann. JOHNSON, D.W., JOHNSON, R.T. y HOLUBEC, E.J. (1999)El aprendizaje cooperativo en el aula. Buenos Aires: Paids. JOHNSON, D.W. and JOHNSON, R.T. (1994) An overview of cooperative learning. Available from
http://co-operation.org/pages/overviewpaper.html
LASAGABASTER, D. and SIERRA, J.M. (2009) Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL classes. InternationalCLIL Research Journal (1) 2, 4-17.
RIB, R. y VIDAL, N. (1993)Project Work. Step by Step. Oxford: Heinemann. SIERRA, J.M. (2001) Project Work and Language Awareness: Insights from the Classroom. En D. Lasagabaster y J.M.
Sierra (eds.)Language Awareness in the Foreign Language Classroom (pp. 181-202). Zarautz: Universidad del Pas Vasco-Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
SIERRA, J.M. (2008) Una programacin por proyectos en un aula universitaria: aportaciones a los diseos curriculares delengua inglesa basados en tareas. Bilbao: Universidad del Pas Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
SIERRA, J.M. (forthcoming) El alumnado universitario como agente evaluador: opiniones sobre su experiencia. SIERRA, J.M. and LASAGABASTER, D. (2008) Los programas AICLE en aulas diversas: Una alternativa para todos?
Lenguaje y Textos 28, 131-142.
32
Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)